Present Evidence Here II

[Shol'va]

Stalin WAS an atheist, but there is no core tenet of atheism that dictates how to behave. In fact atheism is not a world view, it is itself a start to other world views.

Stalin marched against the church because he did not tolerate any challenge to absolute, centralized power.
If there was a Church of Atheists, Stalin would have torn it brick by brick. He was batshit crazy for absolute consolidation of power.

I had the misfortune of having lived under Ceausescu's communist regime. The Orthodox church did just fine. While it was not officially endorsed or encouraged in any way, you could still be a practicing Christian.
As further evidence that atheism does not inescapably lead to Stalin-level assholery, look at all the current, modern countries that are either secular or largely atheistic.

Communism is not a consequence of atheism, it's the other way around. Communists do not take well to any organized anything that is perceived as a challenge to power. The State™ is to provide all the needs to its people.

This whole Stalin argument is beyond debunked.

Still no evidence for god.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Communism is not a consequence of atheism, it's the other way around.

*puts on troll hat*

So you're saying people become atheists because they're communists? Just another example of why atheism is bullshit.

*takes off troll hat*

[Shol'va]

Yes. We are all commies around here.

[the_antithesis]

Not me.

I'm a Johnny-commie-lately.

[Shol'va]

Reminds me of a joke, a conversation between two communists decrying capitalism. One says that capitalism is about the exploitation of man by man, whereas under communism, it's the other way around!

[Biodome]

[PickelledEggs]

*now stickied*

[SNP1]

I am an atheist, but try refuting this argument (uses modal logic)

CCF - Is a conjunct of all contingent facts in the world
P1) It is possible that a world exists where the CCF has an explanation, and that explanation is q
P2) Explanation q must be a necessary being
P3) It is possible a necessary being exists (from 1 & 2)
P4) If it is possible a necessary being exists, then a necessary being exists (via. axiom s5)
C) A necessary being exists

No one I know has been able to refute the argument

[GrinningYMIR]

P4 does not work to me, just because something is possible doesn't mean its a certainty, for the sake of your argument yes, but I have a possibility of boning Jennifer Lawrence, it doesn't mean that I will, or that it is an action that will most certainly happen, there exists just the chance of it happening/being true.

[PickelledEggs]

I am an atheist, but try refuting this argument (uses modal logic)

CCF - Is a conjunct of all contingent facts in the world
P1) It is possible that a world exists where the CCF has an explanation, and that explanation is q
P2) Explanation q must be a necessary being
P3) It is possible a necessary being exists (from 1 & 2)
P4) If it is possible a necessary being exists, then a necessary being exists (via. axiom s5)
C) A necessary being exists

No one I know has been able to refute the argument

That's too much like algebra for this early in the morning.

[SNP1]

P4 does not work to me, just because something is possible doesn't mean its a certainty, for the sake of your argument yes, but I have a possibility of boning Jennifer Lawrence, it doesn't mean that I will, or that it is an action that will most certainly happen, there exists just the chance of it happening/being true.

One of the rules of modal logic is that if something necessary is possible, then it is real.
You boning Jennifer Lawrence is possible, but is not necessary. That means that it will not necessarily happen.

[Drummer Guy]

I am an atheist, but try refuting this argument (uses modal logic)

CCF - Is a conjunct of all contingent facts in the world
P1) It is possible that a world exists where the CCF has an explanation, and that explanation is q
P2) Explanation q must be a necessary being
P3) It is possible a necessary being exists (from 1 & 2)
P4) If it is possible a necessary being exists, then a necessary being exists (via. axiom s5)
C) A necessary being exists

No one I know has been able to refute the argument

Nobody can refute it because it rests on one big fallacy.  P4 is obviously false, but they always pull the "uh-uh, part of modal logic is that it has to be true, check mate!"

Defining something as necessary doesn't mean it has to exist.  It's that simple.

[Hydra009]

I'm starting to wonder about P2 as well.  What the hell is a necessary being?  I have never even heard of this term outside of religion, and from the looks of it, it's the same old apologetics argument where stuff that we can't explain has to be explained by a "necessary being" (aka god).  Well, yeah, if you stack the deck to the point where there is no other explanation than a god, then you're of course going to arrive at the conclusion that a god is the only explanation.  Doesn't make it a killer argument, though.  Just a flow chart with a predefined answer.

[SNP1]

I'm starting to wonder about P2 as well.  What the hell is a necessary being?  I have never even heard of this term outside of religion, and from the looks of it, it's the same old apologetics argument where stuff that we can't explain has to be explained by a "necessary being" (aka god).  Well, yeah, if you stack the deck to the point where there is no other explanation than a god, then you're of course going to arrive at the conclusion that a god is the only explanation.  Doesn't make it a killer argument, though.  Just a flow chart with a predefined answer.

Quite simple. There are 2 types of facts, contingent and necessary.

The argument is talking about how it is possible for the CCF (which is every contingent fact) to have an explanation.

Now, there are only two things that can explain anything, contingent facts or necessary ones.

Since we are dealing with the explanation of every contingent fact, we know the explanation cannot be contingent (as that would mean we are not talking about every contingent fact). That means that the explanation of the CCF must, by definition, be necessary.

P2 is true by definition.

So, let's go over each premise:

P1) It is possible that a world exists where the CCF has an explanation, and that explanation is q

In modal logic, a possible world is one that you can imagine that is not contradictory. Because of this, this premise works under modal logic.

P2) Explanation q must be a necessary being

I explained this above.

P3) It is possible a necessary being exists (from 1 & 2)

This is the natural conclusion from the first 2 premises. It is possible that there is a world where q exists (P1), and q must be a necessary being (P2), therefore it is possible that there is a necessary being.

P4) If it is possible a necessary being exists, then a necessary being exists (via. axiom s5)

This is based off of one of the axioms of modal logic. Anything that is determined to be necessary exists in all possible worlds.

C) A necessary being exists

This follows directly from premise 4.

This is why I feel like the argument is irrefutable. Everything logically follows when you use modal logic.

[doorknob]

where's your proof that only two types of facts exist. When I Googled it I Only got articles about type 2 diabetes.
Also your sense of logic is highly flawed.